Byron McCormick resigns after DoE terminates funding for fuel cells
Honda FCX Clarity - Click above for a gallery
Last week, the federal government decided to shift the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. This week, J. Byron McCormick has resigned from the U.S. Energy Department's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee to protest this decision, saying he's "both perplexed and confused by [the] decision to zero the budget." Up until last year, McCormick had been serving as GM's executive director for fuel cell development.
In his resignation email, McCormick further states that his 35 years of experience showed "understandings as to what it takes to make a sustainable/viable business with products customers will purchase." The bitter note continues as McCormick says that plug-in technology is not realistic and is based on "idealized models or non-realistic or scientifically supportable assumptions." It's clear that Mr. McCormick was extremely upset by the government's actions. Read the whole email here. Thanks for the link, Greg!
Gallery: 2009 Honda FCX Clarity First drive
[Source: Hydrogen & Fuel]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
PeterG 9:50AM (5/13/2009)
Would we expect anything different from a Hydrogen proponent, when Hydrogen funding is cut to nil? He probably wouldn't have had a job even if he didn't resign.
Reply
gorr 9:56AM (5/13/2009)
They should stop plug-in's funding and petrol funding and every fundings there is, so real products might hit the open market for consumers. Until then stop any buying of polluting gasoline and diesel expenditure like corrolla's, camry's, malibu's, prius, mazda, ford focus, ka, taurus, fusion, chrsler sxt, etc. All these products come from big associated cartel decided to ruin the biosphre, toyota, gm, exxon, american and europeen and japanese goverment, wall street traders, senators, etc, all these folks collect and still collect ton of money to suffocate you and destroy water, land and air. Even prius and tesla owners destroy the air with gasoline or dirty electricity but tesla is a little bit less polluting but they don't offer clean electric generating machines that the consumer can install into the car or at home to generate clean electricity. All these folks cry that it's impossible to generate clean power, so they are no-believers.
I said and i repeat to sell green algae fuels for old cars and trucks and ships and trains and to sell water-powered vehicules and electrical generation.
Reply
James 10:00AM (5/13/2009)
plug-in technology is not realistic and is based on "idealized models or non-realistic or scientifically supportable assumptions."
============================================
I thought that was the problem with the "hydrogen economy". It was always completely non-realistic. Nobody ever explained how all of that hydrogen was going to be produced, transported around and used in a safe manner.
The cost of a hydrogren fuel cell vehicle? $500,000 for the Honda FCX Clarity? Instead I would rather take a Tesla Roadster and a Tesla Model S, then put the other $350,000 in the bank.
Reply
Tim 10:06AM (5/13/2009)
The Hydrogen Economy is based on "idealized models or non-realistic or scientifically supportable assumptions."
Reply
mapoftazifosho 10:19AM (5/13/2009)
If we keep flip-flopping on what technology to get behind to power our cars every 10 years...we're not going to get anywhere...
Reply
kballs 9:38PM (5/13/2009)
Yeah, let's stick to our original plan and never change course, no matter how many ice burgs we spot ahead. Throw out the tiller, we don't need it. It may not be popular, but hitting the ice burgs and going down with the ship is the right thing to do!
lne937s 10:59AM (5/13/2009)
Getting more of the quote:
“I also know that there are many well meaning passionate advocates who do not have that relevant experience and make their cases based on idealized models or non-realistic or scientifically supportable assumptions. So, I in no way mean to demean them or you in my disagreement with your decision."
In greater context, it looks like he may actually be referring to some of the empassioned but unexperienced hydrogen advocates who are promoting unrealistic hydrogen schemes for distorting the scientific movement for hydrogen research. Nowhere in the letter does he mention the "plug-in technology" that this article infers. He never states that hydrogen is ready for market- just that he seems to think there is a future in it and the budget shouldn't be eliminated.
These types of important statements shouldn't be made in email form- it is too easy to misiterpret... especially when taken out of context. In reading what he actually wrote, he doesn't look all that angry of "bitter".
Reply
jharlan 10:55AM (5/13/2009)
He's gonna pick up his marbles and go home. Good riddance. He just
couldn't get the scam past ABG, could he? Byron, please take Gorr with you.
Reply
paulwesterberg 10:56AM (5/13/2009)
Good riddance to another bush era industry lobbyist.
Reply
andrichrose 11:07AM (5/13/2009)
exactly " after 35 years of experience " what have we got to show
for it , a few 500,000 dollar cars for celebrities !
Reply
Phil 11:13AM (5/13/2009)
"Byron" picked the wrong technology to support in the beginning of the 21st century. He's pissed. Hey, does that mean Honda will put a say, $50,000.00 rebate on their remaining FCX Clarity cars in stock?
Reply
jharlan 11:25AM (5/13/2009)
Just because the government stops funding doesn't mean developers like Honda have to stop development and manufacturing, It just means the end product will have to pay for itself. It needs to stand on it's own economic and environmental capabilities. They need to be able to predict future profits would support the R & D.
All they need for success is a few thousand obscenely rich celebs who are willing to pay $500+K for a small car with rather modest performance to show the world how Al Gore Green they are.
I suspect this business model won't stand up to the light of day.
Reply
usbseawolf2000 11:37AM (5/13/2009)
I thought the government cut 60% of the funding stated in the previous news.
Reply
lne937s 11:52AM (5/13/2009)
They cut 100% of automotive fuel cell research, which is ~60% of total fuel cell research. They kept more general and stationary fuel cell research in tact.
Tohe 11:51AM (5/13/2009)
Don't let the door hit you Byron.
Reply
Randy C. 2:14PM (5/13/2009)
Good bye Byron. I wonder if he ever came up with a solution the physics problem of Hydrogen Fuel Cells (HFC). It takes 4 to 5 times more energy to go a mile in an HFC car than a simple electric car. No amount of money or protesting is going change the laws of physics.
Reply
Carney 4:44PM (5/13/2009)
A key player in the Hydrogen Hoax has finally had his hand removed from our wallets.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
The Administration ending hydrogen is long overdue and a welcowe change from the prior one's advocacy of this fraud.
While plug-ins have their problems and are for now are a mistake compared to focusing on a large-scale move to alcohol fuel, they are worlds better than hydrogen.
Reply
PeterG 5:05PM (5/13/2009)
I always get a kick out of the lobbying for your preferred boondoggle while crapping on another boondoggle. Glass houses and stones come to mind.
Clearly H2 cars is another boondoggle, but it is a tiny to insignificant next to the Epic Corn Ethanol boondoggle that you cheer lead constantly.
Carney 11:06AM (5/14/2009)
PeterG, I am not specifically a booster of corn ethanol.
I do defend corn ethanol from bogus, non fact based attacks (the food vs. fuel myth, CO2 issues, etc.), but I also criticize the corn ethanol lobby for obscuring methanol and for pursuing a flawed strategy of tariffing foreign ethanol and increasing the proportion of ethanol in low-alcohol fuel blends, rather than advocating a flex-fuel mandate.
What I am an advocate of alcohol fuels in general, with a focus on both methanol and ethanol (neither can do the job alone) for "light duty" vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, minvans, etc) and methanol-derived di-methyl ether (DME) as both a diesel fuel for heavy duty vehicles (ships, trains, buses, and large trucks) and a feedstock for plastics.
I have already carefully and patiently explained the facts to you about corn ethanol but apparently that does not make a difference with you.
To recap, ethanol is a liquid at normal temperature and pressure and can be compatible with gasoline powered engines. It is less flammable than gasoline and safer in crashes. It is currently in widespread use and is sold at retail in nearly 2,000 locations in the US. It is not derived from fossil fuels and does not require more energy to make than it carries. It is ready and in use now, with no further research necessary. It costs less per gallon than gasoline in most areas and during the last several years also cost less in terms of dollars per mile. In short, it is a practical, affordable, and viable alternative fuel.
All of these facts are a 180 degree contrast with hydrogen, which is a highly leak-prone gas, cannot be used in a gasoline engine, is extremely dangerous and explosion-prone, is almost unheard-of as a retail product, is derived almost exclusively from fossil fuels, is constantly "just a few research years away" from being ready, requires more energy to create than it carries, and consistently costs far more than gasoline.
Finally, although ethanol corn production is up, so is "food corn", and there is plenty of unused farmland, so its growth does not reduce food supplies.
Tim W 6:32PM (5/13/2009)
Elon Musk also owns a little company called Solar City ... and people that buy Roadsters are encouraged to buy or lease solar panels from Solar City to run their cars on sunlight. Tesla itself doesn't run a green power business, but they don't try to tell people it's not possible to get cleaner power.
Reply